The plans seemed flawless, and the courage of the soldiers and Marines unflappable.

But with the dust settling  and the adrenaline rush of battle now subsiding  military officials are finding some weapons performed as advertised. Others, however, let troops down when they needed them most.

Army and Marine officials recently released after-action reports compiling what was right and what was wrong about the small arms with which troops squared off against Iraqi forces. Soldiers and Marines rated the rifles and pistols they carried into battle, and not all got perfect scores.

Soldiers and Marines relied on variants of the M-16 rifle. The M-16, in service since the early days of the Vietnam War, was highly criticized then as unreliable, often jamming during firefights. Soldiers who participated in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan also complained the M-4 variant, a shorter version of the M-16, lacked what they needed in combat.

In Iraq, reviews were mixed.

Most soldiers carried the M-4 into battle in Iraq and were very satisfied with this weapon, according a report from the Armys Special Operations Battle Lab. It performed well in a demanding environment, especially given the rail system and accompanying sensors and optics.

Marines carried the older and larger M-16A2 rifles, but a report from the Marine Corps Systems Command Liaison Team stated: Many Marines commented on desire for the shorter weapon vice the longer M-16s.

One Marine told the team that the shorter rifle would have been better in confined urban battle. Some also said the smaller rifle would have been easier to handle when climbing in and out of trucks and armored vehicles.

Several Marines even opted to use the AK-47s that had been captured from Iraqi weapons caches, the Marine report stated. Others were trading rifles for pistols to go into buildings to allow for mobility in confined spaces.

Marine Corps officials announced late last year that infantry forces would soon switch from the M-16A2 to the M-16A4, a heavier-barreled version of the long rifle with a rail system like the M-4. Stocks of the weapons, however, arrived in Kuwait too late to be fielded and sighted for battle. Most stayed in storage, but some weapons were delivered to Marines under a plan to initially field one per squad.

A number of M-16A4 rifles, fitted with a 4X scope, were given to Marine rifleman. The combination, Marines said, allowed them to identify targets at a distance, under poor conditions, and maintained ability to quickly acquire the target in close-in environment[s].

But not all soldiers and Marines were enamored with the performance of their rifles. Complaints centered on lack of range and reliability problems.

The most significant negative comment was reference [to] the M-4s range, the Army report stated. In the desert, there were times where soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range.

Safety was another concern. The M-4s bolt can ride forward when the selector switch is on safe, allowing the firing pin to strike a bullets primer.

Numerous soldiers showed us bullets in their magazines that had small dents in the primer, the Army report said.

Reliability complaints also found fault with the oil soldiers and Marines used to clean their weapons. In the dusty, sandstorm-plagued battlefields of Iraq, weapons became clogged with sand, trapped by the heavy oil, called CLP.

Several Washington Post articles recalling the night the 507th Maintenance Company was ambushed recounted moments when soldiers in the convoy, including Pfc. Jessica Lynch, battled their weapons to continue fighting Iraqi irregular forces.

In the swirling dust, soldiers rifles jammed, one article reported. Pfc. Patrick Miller, 23, from suburban Wichita, began shoving rounds into his rifle one at a time, firing single shots at enemies swarming all around.

We had no working weapons, Sgt. James Riley told The Washington Post. We couldnt even make a bayonet charge  we would have been mowed down.

The Armys after-action found more soldiers unhappy with CLP.

The sand is as fine as talcum powder, the report stated. The CLP attracted the sand to the weapon.

Unlike the soldiers reports after Afghanistan, Marines in Iraq said the 5.56 mm round fired from the M-16 definitely answered the mail and as long as shots were in the head or chest, they went down. The Marine reports said many were initially skeptical of the small rounds performance against the heavier 7.62 mm round fired from AK-47s. There were reports of enemy being shot and not going down, but most were referencing non-lethal shots on extremities.

Still, there were reports of targets receiving shots in the vitals and not going down. These stories could not be described, but are of the rare superhuman occurrences that defy logic and caliber of round.

The report said Marines asked for a heavier-grained round  up to 77 grains.

The M-16 series of rifles fires a 55-grain bullet, a projectile that weighs slightly more than three-and-a-half grams. Some servicemembers believe a heavier-grained bullet would carry more energy downrange, creating greater knockdown power.

Both soldiers and Marines also noted problems with the M-9 9 mm pistol.

There was general dissatisfaction with this weapon, the Army report said. First and foremost, soldiers do not feel it possesses sufficient stopping power.

Soldiers asked for a tritium glow-in-the-dark sight for night firing.

But soldiers and Marines alike railed against the poor performance of the M-9 ammunition magazines.

The springs are extremely weak and the follower does not move forward when rounds are moved, the Marine report stated. If the magazine is in the weapon, malfunctions result.

Soldiers complained that even after they were told to stretch the springs and load only 10 rounds instead of the maximum 15, the weapons still performed poorly. Lack of maintenance was determined not to be the cause.

Multiple cleanings of the magazine each day does not alleviate the problem, the Marine report stated. The main problem is the weak/worn springs.

Still, Marines wanted more pistols to back up their rifles, especially in urban environments, according to the report.

Both soldiers and Marines also noted problems with the M-9 9 mm pistol. There was general dissatisfaction with this weapon, the Army report said. First and foremost, soldiers do not feel it possesses sufficient stopping power.

I hear some guy named Browning has designed a pistol which may be satisfactory.

The most significant negative comment was reference [to] the M-4s range, the Army report stated. In the desert, there were times where soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range.

No, Sh*t!

500+ meters is 7.62 country. Should have broken out the M14's in storage if there are any left.

I've heard rumors that, rather than sell them thru the DCM, the plan is to scrap the M-14's, since they are too big to give to 3rd world "allies" and Americans can't be trusted with an "assault" rifle.

The 9mm is Euro-junk. Without making judgements, the "civilized" concept of wounding so that the Enemy ties up 4 other to take care of each casualty is a luxury the 3rd World does not indulge in. Kindness is a bullet thru the head. Hence the .45 ACP... Put 'em down, one shot, no worry about him getting up.

This brings to mind what General George S.Patton Jr. said about the M-1Garand Rifle!He called it:"The Finest Battle Implement Ever Devised"!!Now,I'm not saying that we should go back that far,but how about the M-14?It fires a .30cal.projectile(7.62/54).Or how about the FN/FAL which fires the same NATO cartridge as the M-14??As far as the Beretta 9mm.pistol,this is a DISGRACE!!!The 1911 Colt.45ACP pistol served this country's armed forces BRILLIANTLY for 75-years!!!!If you ask all of the pistol champions,they will almost always favor a 1911 variant.Combat-wise,it has no peer.The only improvement that could(and can)be easily undertaken is to re-engineer the grip so that it will accomodate a straddled,high-cap(15-round)magazine.You don't have to make a "killing shot"with a 1911.ANYWHERE will do just fine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FNGs! You never lube a weapon in the desert! You spend a lot of time removing the least speck of oil! If the gun doesn't work without lube, ram it up the Ordinance Dept.'s rear end and get one that does, hence the pickup AK-47s...

Why does every war have to be fought by little boys, who get killed re-learning how to slaughter?

The M9 is a piece of sh!t- in my opinion. You may as well throw the f---ing thing at the enemy. You'd be better off with a reliable revolver than the M9.

The max effective range of the M16A2 is 550 meters. It's hard to distinguish a man target past this range. But getting accurate fire at the ranges between 300 and 500 meters is important. The M16A2 sight is set all the way up to 800 meters. I would've felt confident setting the iron sights on 500 meters and having a go at a target at that range. The thing is, obviously, those extra inches of barrel weigh something. You have to sort of take your pick in the end. What do you want? A weapon that is effective at long range or a weapon that is easier to carry and good for MOUT type combat? Personally, I like to be able to shoot at something from a long ways off and have a reasonable chance of hitting it.

If you fire a .45ACP and then fire a 9mm,the difference is breathtaking!If you re-load both(as do I),the"recipes"are just as breatakingly different!!Standard load for the .45ACP is a 230-grain bullet and about 10grs of Unique(what I use).The 9mm Parabellum standard is a 115-grain bullet with about 6grs.of Unique.No Comparison!!!!!!

I also hear that a guy named Glock has made some ultra reliable pistols that are favored by police in the U.S.

Glock has some deficiencies as a military weapon that don't practically impede its use as a police weapon (which it was originally designed to be). There are definitely better military service pistols out there. But it is great for police or home use. I have a G27 for CCW in fact.

As a technical nit, Glock reliability is middle of the road for modern service pistols. There are a number of other popular platforms that have substantially better MRBF figures.

21
posted on 07/13/2003 3:56:48 PM PDT
by tortoise
(All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)

I would point out that many of the comments reference the "feelings" of the soldiers with no regard to whether it has any bearing on reality and fact. The article has hints of urban legend all over the place in it, and I can state for a fact that most of what grunts think they know about weapons is pure voodoo and third-hand anecdotes of dubious origin. This isn't reason enough to question the effectiveness of a weapon.

There is very little substance to the article that references real specific shortcomings with the weapons that weren't intentionally designed into the platform -- no weapon system can do everything perfectly -- and trade-offs in capability are to be expected to get the maximum performance in the general case.

22
posted on 07/13/2003 4:03:37 PM PDT
by tortoise
(All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)

Can female soldiers qualify shooting the 7.62 round at 1000 yds (as was the old standard)?

What the hell does gender have to do with how well a person can shoot a wimpy-ass cartridge like the 7.62 NATO, or any cartridge for that matter? The only possible relevance is the weight of a rifle that you have to lug around all day.

If shooting ability for a given cartridge size was a measure of manhood, my 110-lb girlfriend must have a johnson that drags on the ground. Puhhlease. This is an imaginary issue.

23
posted on 07/13/2003 4:12:39 PM PDT
by tortoise
(All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)

Personally, I like to be able to shoot at something from a long ways off and have a reasonable chance of hitting it.

Not me. I'll take a weapon that is light and fast any day. When it starts to get close and personal, I would rather avoid boat anchors at all cost. Go ahead and have a guy or two in your squad with some extended range capability (something that the M16 can be configured to do quite adequately actually, if built right), but you'll want most of your guys using systems that are optimized for killing in the 200 meters and under range.

24
posted on 07/13/2003 4:17:39 PM PDT
by tortoise
(All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)

There is very little substance to the article that references real specific shortcomings with the weapons that weren't intentionally designed into the platform -- no weapon system can do everything perfectly -- and trade-offs in capability are to be expected to get the maximum performance in the general case.

Excellent observation. This also applies to most of the posts. Though well intentioned, there is a lot of mythology out there, especially about the difference between the 9mm and the .45. The energy of both is practically identical, and the only studies worthy of the name shows "stopping power" to be nearly identical as well.

Stopping power is very hard to quantify, and with full metal jacketed military rounds, you are very likely to have to shoot a determined opponent several times, no matter what military pistol caliber you use.

Lack of range was and is a crucial problem in Afghanistan. The short barreled rifle simply does not have the range for the conditions our soldiers faced. Some folks suggested adding a long barreled rifle in 7.62 to each squad to help with the problem. In other words going back 40 years to the M-14.

Well, we both have our opinions on this. Apparantly some of the guys on the ground see it both ways:

The most significant negative comment was reference [to] the M-4s range, the Army report stated. In the desert, there were times where soldiers needed to assault a building that may be 500+ meters distant across open terrain. They did not feel the M-4 provided effective fire at that range.

I haven't figure out what exactly they're complaining about in this article.

They mention the thirty year old controversy and put the blame on the M-16 rifle instead of the real reason which was the gunpowder. If they wanted controversy in the ancient times, why didn't they discuss the teething problems of the Garand??

Next, they didn't like the range of the M-16 but they picked up AK-47's to use???

Then they traded rifles for pistols but didn't like the fact they were unreliable??

They showed firing pin marks on the primers, neglecting to say that the non-existant problem started in 1936.

Gees, learn to clean a magazine, use a better lube and the rest of these "problems" can disappear.

Don't know about 1000 yards, but my 5'1" daughter recently qualified at 500 yards. Good thing, too - she didn't shoot too well at 300 yards. Figures she'll either have to shoot 'em at 500, or wait until they close to 200 yards. In between they are safe.

Of course, it would be preferable it the Marines avoided sending her to the front lines - as she'll admit, 5'1" & 115 lbs has real drawbacks for combat.

But soldiers and Marines alike railed against the poor performance of the M-9 ammunition magazines.

Regardless of your opinion of the 9mm (and I think it stinks as a military round, it isn't even adequate as a police round), magazines are considered "semi-expendable" in the military. Wanna bet there was no money in the budget for replacement mags during the klinton regime, just like there was no money for small arms ammo production?

35
posted on 07/13/2003 4:50:13 PM PDT
by 300winmag
(All that is gold does not glitter.)

That was a very polite posting. I have to work on my tact but loads that are that hot are very bothersome to me. I have a pet load for a 45 Colt that goes to double digits with a 255 grain bullet and I won't post it at all. Especially since it's only used in a Ruger Blackhawk.

The reason the SAW is effective out to that rate is because it's spraying out a high volume of fire. Technically, the M16 is good out to that range if you can see what you're shooting at and can see where the rounds land. The maximum range of the M16 is over 3500 meters. Effective range is only 550 though. The 50 Cal has a max range of over 6 kilometers but the effective range is 1800 meters. That's over a mile. The thing with the 50 is, you can legitimately aim at things that far away and hope to hit it.

The barrel for the 50 is almost 4 feet long. This accounts for most of this accuracy. The thing with the M4 is- you're losing barrel length. That's what makes it less accurate than the M16A2 at range.

I can hear it now. If that squirrel gun can't drop a horse at 1200 yards, what good is it?

Seriously, I think they were overjoyed to get rid of the single shots.

I had a Trapdoor that had knife blade marks on the inside of the receiver where the previous owner had to pry the copper cases out of the chamber. I didn't know what the marks were until I read about the Seventh Cavalry having the same problem.

If range and accuracy are the primary concern, they would be better off with a 6.5mm. Hell, they could just neck down 7.62 NATO. Flatter trajectory, way more effective range, and better penetration in the same size package.

7.62 is really the wrong answer to just about any problem the military has these days. Like the 9mm, the only reason it is around is due to legacy issues. There are reasons those cartridges have been dumped in various times and places. We don't need to move backwards, we need to move forward.

48
posted on 07/13/2003 5:33:15 PM PDT
by tortoise
(All these moments lost in time, like tears in the rain.)

"Reliability complaints also found fault with the oil soldiers and Marines used to clean their weapons. In the dusty, sandstorm-plagued battlefields of Iraq, weapons became clogged with sand, trapped by the heavy oil, called CLP."

There are myriad excellent substitutes for oil as a lubricant on firearms and trust the mule-headed military brass to be the last in the world to be aware of it. Did they think Iraq was NOT going to be dusty?

One such is trade-named "dri-kote" which is does not attract dust and is an excellent colorless lubricant. One good application of it and dust and grit just bounce off of those tightly toleranced parts. However, if today's army is anything like my training outfit, a soldier would be court-martialed for using it.

I would expect that most of the weapons problems can be traced back to bureauocratic paralysis and lack of professionalism in the upper echelons of the military services.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.